Nah, that would be too easy....wait, some already did, how dare you lazy apes . Sometimes i wish i had this ability as well, to ignore facts and make my own little (false) statements based on superficial knowledge or hearsay. I mean life would be so easy...... and ohh so boring. No offence but if you believe that mankind is not responsible for the GW up to a certain point or if you think that we are unable to alter the dimensions of this problem then my friend, whoever you are, youre utterly stupid. Maybe im wrong and/or maybe this GW thing is a really hoax and just another campaign to let us all pay more money and lose the rest of our autonomy.
lol, im curious about your results then. Anyway, in case that would happen, Mods would get even more into trouble with language barriers, irony and sarcasm and in the end of the day, everybody is banned, even mods and devs unless they do not forget the smilies :P
Well, I've always taken GW seriously, even if I've been a little skeptical or doubtful at times. I've never bought a car (I'm 31 now), and walk wherever I can. My job over the last decade was with an environmental restoration agency, and I can't tell you how many trees I've planted over the years. Let's just say 1000's. I've designed my own home based around low impact ecological principles (strawbale, garden roof, grey water recycling, solar and wind power, permaculture etc...), I buy organic whenever I can, and I sign up to green power when I'm in Melbourne. I've actively campaigned to protect forests in 3 different Australian states, I used to smoke a lot of pot, mostly vegetarian etc... so, basically I'm a hippie without the dreadlocks and the nostalgia.
I like to think people can make a difference with their lifestyle choices. Just having a food plot at home, volunteering with a local conservation group a few weekends a year, or deciding to walk to the shops (better for your health)- these are things most people can do with little effort required.
actually, i got your point, at least i think you used some sort of sarcasm (cmiiw) Especially after reading your answer i have to say that i didnt meant you in personal but everyone else that's ready my comment and is thinking the opposite way. (but i think you got it since it also sounds a bit like a reason for house advertising, in a positive way obviously ) If everyone would do it like you, and maybe just as much as possible (depending on money etc) then the progress of GW will drop dramatically. Of course it wouldn't stop it since its most likely a natural progress but then again we could at least say that we did something against the negative side effects of the industrial revolution, forced by ours and many genrations before us.
This reminds me on sept, 11 where a scientist collected data from all over the united states regarding air- temperatures. Even if it was a hot summer day, tempratures decreased between -2 -5 degrees as far as i remember. Just because the hole air traffic has been cancelled? (i think it was inside here Global Dimming) Now having this in mind, imagine what would happen if mankind changes its habits radically.
When gas is running out, we are forced to go the right way. Hopefully.
Edit: i'd like to highlight my favorite reply here made by FL!P. Thanks buddy, youre the man REPLY
Global warming and smog are two different issues. The smog you see in the movies over Los Angeles and Detroit actually does not cover the entire US. They're in very concentrated areas. Anyway, that's a separate topic and not relevant here. We mustn't fool ourselves into thinking if we walk outside and take a breath of cool, fresh air, there's no problem.
Let's take another look at the CO2 and other primary greenhouse gas concentrations worldwide over the last 2000 years:
The natural warming that has taken place can be seen in the statistically flat data leading up to about 1750. You see how steep the curve becomes after that? That is a combination of both natural and man-made processes. The steepness of that curve is actually accelerating too. How high do you think CO2 will go in another 100 or 200 years if we don't do anything about it? Even in the next 30-50 years? Again, the report covers this thoroughly using various climate models and scenarios.
Look at that graph and tell me humans have nothing to do with it. <---I must insist on a response from you on this point. Don't bother replying if you won't address my points and actually engage in the intelligent debate you insisted we partake in.
From the ice core samples, we know that there has never been a period in the last many tens or hundreds of thousands of years where the curve was so steep. That's some 50-60 times steeper than in any period scientists have been able to measure thus far (specifically, the period of warming over the 11-12,000 years following the last ice age, which subsequently leveled off until 1750.) It corresponds precisely to the human industrial era. I don't know how someone can look at that and other graphs of the greenhouse gas data and see it any other way.
Scientists know with reasonable certainty about how much CO2 is emitted by cars, power plants, cow flatulence (that still cracks me up ), and the like. CO2 causes warming. There is no question about that. If we increase CO2 with no end, we will get more warming.
There's nothing natural about that curve being 50-60 times steeper today than it has been at any period in time over the last 100,000 years or so. And it's just getting steeper every year.
What do mean "if it supposed to?" Supernatural influences? The will of God? Don't be a dolt. If you get hit by a car do you get angry at the driver or do you lay back and say, "well, that was supposed to happen."
I'm sorry, but when it comes to our climate, I don't want to hear any philosophical/religious bs about predetermined fate. Really. We understand what causes what quite well, and it can be attributed to things other than supernatural forces.
Ice Age: That was due to purely natural influences back then. That's not the same situation we have today. I think the idea to "let nature take its course" is idiotic when looking at data like this. Do you know the consequences of simply ignoring this? Computer simulations paint a rather bleak picture, including those run on the Earth Simulator (the fastest supercomputer in the world, which does nothing but run climate simulations 24/7). This is the same computer that predicted the hurricane off the South American coast line a few years back, by the way, which was an unprecedented event. (I don't know that it had anything to do with global warming. The point is that computer models can simulate climate these days about as well as we can simulate cars.)
Read the report, or at least the FAQ. If there's something specific you can point to that you disagree with, reference it and we can debate it.
The CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere spreads all around the world. The graph I showed is the average level world-wide. You can't get away from it. Again, we're not talking about localized urban smog, but worldwide average CO2 levels and rate of change.
And yes, we can stop this trend. That's what the climatologists are telling us. You know better than they do? That's a pretty arrogant, egotistical suggestion. If you have the flu and all the medical doctors say it can be cured, you listen to them, right? But you won't listen to the climate doctors?
You're right about the trees though. We discussed that already. There are multitudes of other factors as well that can reduce CO2 levels much like trees do (again, read the report FAQ at the very least). One problem is that we can get to certain tipping points along the way where things can run away from us and we can't get back. Once the greenland ice sheet melts, the rate of CO2 absorption, radiation reflection back into space, and so forth, will be changed drastically from what they are today. Scientists seem to imply that it would be in a positive forcing direction (towards yet more warming, which causes the atmosphere to absorb more water vapor, an even nastier greenhouse gas, and we go into a nasty little self-reinforcing cycle). Once the ice sheets/glaciers are gone, you can't go back and fix that. It becomes much harder then to try to get things back under control. So we can't just sit around and wait until you walk outside in Scottland and choke on CO2 before deciding to stop "letting nature take its course." This is no longer nature.
I covered ethanol in the last post. Apparently you didn't comprehend what I said. I'll try again, this time typing very slowly so you can understand and don't miss it
When you burn ethanol, you still produce CO2. Ethanol means we can grow our fuel instead of pulling it out of irreplaceable stockpiles underground. If anything, this might be a negative thing for GW because we'll now potentially never run out of fossil fuels.
Again, provide a specific example of a contradiction as I requested before. Back it up with data if you can, the way I did in my posts. Don't dodge my points and make sweeping, blanket statements that you can provide no evidence for. You're supposedly the intelligent one here, so let's hear it
todd i wouldnt argue too much with the deriv of ice core data since at least from what i think i know about it it comes with a bit of inherent averaging
he doesnt ?
my understanding of quantum physics is at a pretty low level but from what ive read what happens is that observation causes the probability density to collapse changing the outcome of anything that relies upon an unobstructed pdf (eg killing cats)
You can choose to keep believing that but eventually (and I think it will be sooner than later) other countries 'problems' will become everybodies problems Already polution made in China is reaching other countries. So stop a minute and think what will happen in the next 20 years when India, China and most of Asia have great economic growth and start poluting like the rest of the world aready is
Climate change will happen, whats the point slowing it down, to prolong it for those who will live in it? I think its selfish. Oh, ill just make people after me, suffer because I don't want ME to.
It's selfish to limit our impact on the environment so that our children inherit the same planet that we started with (or one that's been changed through natural causes and not industry)? Whaaa?
Look at that graph and tell me humans have nothing to do with it.
I'm taking a lot of time with this and your reply is a three sentence, horribly illogical post. May I ask your age? If you're a young kid, I'll cut you a break, but if you're much more than 15 years old or so I might need to lay into you a bit pretty soon.
If you believe I'm wrong (a distinct possibility), you'll need to do a lot better than this to change my mind.
Look at that graph and tell me humans have nothing to do with it.
I'm taking a lot of time with this and your reply is a three sentence (again), horribly illogical post. May I ask your age? If you're a young kid, I'll cut you a break, but if you're much more than 15 years old or so I might need to lay into you a bit pretty soon.
Following that logic, the earth isn't round, right? And 2 + 2 isn't 4. And so on. So by your logic we'd forsake science, go back to living in caves, or failing that, go extinct when the icecaps melt, we run out of oxygen and have nothing to shield us from the sun.
You had to be TOLD it, before you were told it, it wasn't happening....
Im not talking about LEARNING things, the very logic your argument is based on, is hear-say, if you weren't ever told it, you wouldn't believe in it. Something you believe in, is something YOU feel, not something you feel, AFTER someone tells you something.
When I say "you" it means "you" (BlueFlame), not "me" (Todd).
I (Todd) realized my house was on fire. I then told you (BlueFlame) just now about it. That means my house was not on fire until I told you (BlueFlame)?
It's not hear-say, it's scientific research. No-one who believes in global warming goes outside each morning, licks their finger, waves it in the air and goes "crikey, it's warmer today, must be global warming: our doom is coming". They believe it because leading researchers have proven it.
*warning* alot of off-topic philosophy (and typos)
First of, sorry if I add more oil to the fire, it's not my intention. I'm just a curious person and it seems there are quite some people here who did some informing of their own and could give me some nice feedback...
I would like to point out that I agree with Electrik Kar that in this current capitalistic democracy each consumer can offer a great deal of "vote" just by buying or not buying certain products. "Be the change you want to see in the world." (TV's now a days breakdown alot sooner, the TV from my grandma is still working.. If companys wish to keep selling stuff, your ipod needs to go kaput else you prolly wont buy an other one soon..Simple business. *horrifying thought* would the same go for medical company's? medicine is big business)
Well of to the asking..
I have heard about the galactic equator and our sun aligning to it, is this confirmable? From the place's I heard about it they often referred to the sun gaining activity due to this alignment. I think they said something about in the next 5 years this allignment should take place.
I also heard about global media giving a one sided view on events (even in this thread this was posted by a journalist). (BTW this reminded me of infowars.com movie's I've seen on youtube) Ofcourse such a thing is hard to be prove or disprove as a fact. (Proving something doesn't exist is by it self a paradox..) But what gain would somebody have by controlling the mass media and what would their goal be?
I also wonder. Global warming not being natural but man made.. isn't man part of nature?
(Just asking stupid questions here, but please do give me some nice feedback, I'm always happy to learn.)
My dad used to say (or still says this). "Enviromentalist are egoists. They are only afraid that the human race will die out.. The planet will survive all our idiotsy, new plants will grow and new beings will develop don't worry..." I don't necessarily agree with him (though he has a point), he does however drive a big http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... t_Chevrolet_Avalanche.jpg .
I don't have a point here just asking... Reading alot of strange stuff on the .net these days and my image of society, evolution and human history is changing even more. It was already changed alot from growing up as an atheist not believing in anything accept for "life's hard but the front of a train is harder" , to experiencing for myself Jose Silva's alpha training (meditation), to finding buddhism, reading "Nothing in This Book Is True, but It's Exactly How Things Are" and needing alot of time to comprehend it, seeing "What the bleep do we know" 1 and later part 2, finding out about the mayan calender, Ian Xel Lungold, José Arguelles, Niburu, Drunvalo Melchizedek, Michael Tsarion and alot more. And I'm trying to find sence in all this info, it seems like a water rapid. In - formation pouring in quicker and quicker, more and more. I'd like to find my own form...
I've been wanting to ask someone this, maybe you have an opinion.
Hydrogen cars have been offered as a solution as a green, zero emissions car. But they do emit water vapour. Now I understand that water vapour too is a greenhouse gas. So what happens when we get 1000s of hydrogen cars on the road?
The other thing is, I do want to ask how accurate the ice core samples are, as evidence of C02 variation in the ancient past. I imagine any kind of sample wouldn't be able to give you a very discreet time/data slice, say even 100 years, - and also, there's the idea that C02 moves around in ice, as someone mentioned earlier. If our C02 situation is unprecedented, in that it's never gone so high so quickly, is that possible to prove once all things/theories have been considered?
. Sometimes i wish i had this ability as well, to ignore facts and make my own little (false) statements based on superficial knowledge or hearsay. I mean life would be so easy...... and ohh so boring. No offence but if you believe that mankind is not responsible for the GW up to a certain point or if you think that we are unable to alter the dimensions of this problem then my friend, whoever you are, youre utterly stupid. Maybe im wrong and/or maybe this GW thing is a really hoax and just another campaign to let us all pay more money and lose the rest of our autonomy. 
(cmiiw) Especially after reading your answer i have to say that i didnt meant you in personal but everyone else that's ready my comment and is thinking the opposite way. (but i think you got it since it also sounds a bit like a reason for house advertising, in a positive way obviously 
) If everyone would do it like you, and maybe just as much as possible (depending on money etc) then the progress of GW will drop dramatically. Of course it wouldn't stop it since its most likely a natural progress but then again we could at least say that we did something against the negative side effects of the industrial revolution, forced by ours and many genrations before us.
Already polution made in China is reaching other countries. So stop a minute and think what will happen in the next 20 years when India, China and most of Asia have great economic growth and start poluting like the rest of the world aready is 
